Headlines

RCP

Video: “You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires”

The leadership in the Republican party and the leadership in the conservative movement have to pull back. Let people float new ideas, let’s have a serious debate. Don’t scream and yell when one person says, ‘You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.’ It really won’t, I don’t think.

I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000 — make it $500,000, make it a million. Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Income tax is peanuts and besides the big people don’t even have earned income. Theirs is all investment income. Let’s get real and have a WEALTH TAX. Let’s see all these loudmouths butts pucker up when they have to give up 10% of their wealth. Every year.

Sure, raise taxes on “the rich” and let everyone see that it doesn’t even put a notch in the deficit and guess what happens next? If you think politicians suddenly wise up and see the error of their big spending ways, you haven’t been paying attention. What comes next is taxes on the not so rich, then taxes on the middle class and so on, once raising taxes has begun it won’t stop, but hey, in the meantime R’s might win a couple more million votes and put them in charge of the Titanic.

Millionaires making above $200,000…
El_Terrible on November 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM
lol.
forest on November 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Don’t they all…
faraway on November 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Apologies. I meant millionaires and billionaires making above $200,000.
El_Terrible on November 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM

If they are serious (sometimes I crack my self up) congress critters should forfeit all their pay and benefits and self-impose a 85% tax rate and turn over any real estate over two houses to the IRS and pay for their own health care.

Income tax is peanuts and besides the big people don’t even have earned income. Theirs is all investment income. Let’s get real and have a WEALTH TAX. Let’s see all these loudmouths butts pucker up when they have to give up 10% of their wealth. Every year.

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years. The report’s findings undermine a central tenet of Republican party orthodoxy on taxes.

2006 report said; “From Surplus to Deficit Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion” 2006 report: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-13-06bud.pdf
On Aug. 23, 2007 the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion. That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since Jan. 20, 2001.

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. Most debt was accumulated as a result of what became known as the “Bush tax cuts”. By the end of Bush’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years. The report’s findings undermine a central tenet of Republican party orthodoxy on taxes.
I am re-posting the report here, in its original form, so that it receives the unfiltered exposure it deserves as a nonpartisan analysis. Click here to read the study: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf

OT-my self-employed friend called his health insurance co. to figure out what was going to happen with his insurance. Turns out the ins industry can’t figure out which insurance policies are Obamacare compliant. Get this, for now, the govt is letting all insurance policies “pass” so long as everyone pays the $2800 ObamaTax. It actually works out to be cheaper for my friend that way, so he’s happy for now. And my health insurance just went up 50%! Can we call Obama a liar yet?

Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is looking for someone to whom to surrender. And so is much of the Republican establishment, so desperate to hold onto positions of influence that they are willing to abandon the newly-confirmed House majority and a bedrock Republican principle for the last two decades.

Giving in on Obama’s tax hikes would not win many votes. But it would certainly end the GOP as a viable opposition.

Kristol has embraced a policy that is nothing more than a left-wing, soak-the-rich meme. It would not close the budget deficit; at best, it would reduce the annual $1 trillion-plus deficit by 7 cents on the collar. Raising taxes would, however, hurt investment and punish success. And Republicans have been burned before by agreeing to deals in which Congress hikes taxes and the promised spending cuts never materialize.

Let it burn. Raise the rates, but maybe negotiate the cutoff at half a mil and above. Then Obama and the Dems get their precious tax hikes, the economy tanks anyway, and the GOP can’t be portrayed as obstructionists or protectors of “the rich”(at least convincingly).

the Kristol business is purposefully aimed at Schmuer, the big talking leftist that protects his privileged class in nyc…Chuck has already come out against that because…well, the white capitalists that pay him are agin it…i mean, they are hoarding their wealth

but the slimy left are way too slick. here’s what will happen. barry needs the Rs as protection now. so he needs to finesse them into jumping first.

in his dreams, he’d like John B to make the first move. barry is a slick extortioner…he won’t say exactly what he wants…he wants you to say..ok, how about 1T…then he can say it was the R parties idea.

this is tough negotiation with a bad actor.

the truth is that barry’s Trillon dollar A Year would require a massive tax increase of 60 percent or thereabouts. Somehow that never got mentioned in the campaign…too busy with orca i guess

but, anyway this is just small time chump change.

the taxing way FORWARD is to uncap the SS taxes (yummy) and then raise the top rates to 45 percent above 200K….oh, and limit the mortgae deduction to 400K…one house only…and of course limit the state/local tax deduction

you want to see schumer turn into a frothing right wing loon…that’s the ticket. lets MOVE

It’s time for some Jujitsu. Let the Bush tax cuts expire completely. Let Obama own that tax hike.

applebutter on November 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM

But neither side wants to let all the rates expire. So if they do and we inevitably go into a deep recession(or depression), the GOP will get a lot of the blame. The idea is to win a political victory, and the only way to do that is to just give the Dems exactly what they’ve been demanding for years. A return to the Clinton rates for the top 2% of income earners.

Will some in the conservative base be PO’d? Yes. But that’s where Boehner can play this wisely. He only needs a handful of Republicans(between 20-25) to actually vote for the tax hikes in order for the bill to pass. So allow the ones in the safest districts to vote yea while sparing the rest. The House Dems will comprise the rest of the votes.

Then sit back, watch the economy tank(especially with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank piling on the pain), and reap the political windfall. Then come 2015 and beyond, we can start to dig ourselves out of this mess.

Raising taxes on millionaires won’t help the country either. It wouldn’t raise enough money to noticeably move the dial on the debt and if Santa Obamuh didn’t spend it on goodies for his low-life bottom-feeding hoodies then he’d just let the loud-mouth Mooch spend it on more lavish WretchedHive parties or extravagant vacations. Da’ gubmint don’ need no mo’ money ta’ squander.

You know what, it will not kill the country if we raise taxes on the lower income people in this nation ALOT, like an infinite amount. From nothing to even negative taxes to say, I dunno, a minimum tax bill equal to 10% of their income, period, no deductions or refunds to get them lower than 10%.

Then sit back, watch the economy tank(especially with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank piling on the pain), and reap the political windfall. Then come 2015 and beyond, we can start to dig ourselves out of this mess.

Will some in the conservative base be PO’d? Yes. But that’s where Boehner can play this wisely. He only needs a handful of Republicans(between 20-25) to actually vote for the tax hikes in order for the bill to pass. So allow the ones in the safest districts to vote yea while sparing the rest. The House Dems will comprise the rest of the votes.

Then sit back, watch the economy tank(especially with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank piling on the pain), and reap the political windfall. Then come 2015 and beyond, we can start to dig ourselves out of this mess.

Doughboy on November 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Ok, does Boehner need any Republicans to vote Yea – can they just vote present (Obama style) to reach quorum?

There are basically 2 schools of thought here: let them break it and own it and make them avoid sequestration at a steep price.

I’d almost prefer to throw our nutsacks on the table and tell them we demand a full repeal of Obamacare in exchange for top Bush tax rates expiring or sequestration WILL happen. If they say no, tell them you will be sending congress home for Christmas early by a certain date and then do it.

But seriously, the income tax probably violated the takings clause but they found a way around that now didn’t they. Let’s just get an amendment going to tax the crap out of those worth $10mil or more. Or $5mil if we want to make sure and snag all the actors and athletes.

So sad for the family farm holders but Buffet has already effed them with lobbying for inheritance taxes so he can come in and act the vulture.

1) Enough of the electorate still blames Bush for the state of the economy. That won’t be the case after 4 more years(not with independent voters anyway).

2) The full brunt of the negative impact of Obama’s policies hadn’t been felt yet. Only now with Obamacare certain to be implemented fully in just over a year are companies announcing layoffs and cutbacks. Slowly but surely we’re seeing more and more coal plants firing workers or shutting down altogether. We could go down the list with Dodd-Frank, the looming tax hikes, you name it.

This stragetery WILL work in 2014 and 2016 because Obama and the Dems cannot blame Bush after being in charge themselves for two terms. They can’t point to the Bush tax cuts as the culprits if those have been repealed. And they’ll have an even harder time claiming they should be left in charge to fix the economy when their own policies will be the obvious source of our perpetual malaise.

So what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton policies by increasing taxes on the rich that gave this county a surplus back in the 90’s? Remember the 90,s when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care, (Obama used the Heritage Foundation’s plan)?

When the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Because the county was making more money than it could spend Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”

Bush argued that a tax cut for the wealthy would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bush believed that when government helps companies, through corporate welfare they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. This theory was called trickledown economics believing that if the rich got richer some of their money would trickle down to the middle class.

The leadership in the Republican party and the leadership in the conservative movement have to pull back. Let people float new ideas, let’s have a serious debate. Don’t scream and yell when one person says, ‘You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.’ It really won’t, I don’t think.

No, you don’t think. Therein lies the problem. Serious debate? how can anyone take you seriously when you refuse to see the destruction your moronic ideas caused in California and New York and Europe?

So what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton policies by increasing taxes on the rich that gave this county a surplus back in the 90’s? Remember the 90,s when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care, (Obama used the Heritage Foundation’s plan)?

Hey tax them all at a 100%, twenty watt. We did the math on that and guess what? not even a speed bump on Oblama’s debt, m’kay?

So what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton policies by increasing taxes on the rich that gave this county a surplus back in the 90’s? Remember the 90,s when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care, (Obama used the Heritage Foundation’s plan)?

JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

You’re viewing these Clinton tax hikes within a vacuum. The economy was in recovery when Clinton came into office and jacked up taxes. He also passed a capital gains tax cut in the late 90′s, had the internet boom which is a once in a generation technological revolution, and worked with Newt and the GOP Congress to balance the budget. Plus India and China’s economies weren’t as competitive as they are now.

Juxatapose that economic picture with today’s. The economy is in stagnation and on the verge of another recession. We’ve got job-killing laws and regulations in place. An anti-fossil fuel energy policy. Annual trillion-plus dollar deficits. Our national debt is over 3 times what it was when Clinton left office. Unemployment is double where it was back then. And the rest of the world’s economies are catching up to us.

So this notion that the Dems seem to have that simply raising taxes on wealthy Americans will fix all our economic problems is ludicrous. I’m morbidly curious to hear what other plans they have to deal with all these problems once the GOP does cave(at least somewhat) on higher taxes. I’m expecting to hear a lot of buck-passing and crickets chirping.

So what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton policies by increasing taxes on the rich that gave this county a surplus back in the 90’s? Remember the 90,s when the Heritage Foundation came up with the Mandate crap back when Clinton tried to do single payer health care, (Obama used the Heritage Foundation’s plan)?

JustTheFacts on November 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Why don’t you go ask Obama and the Dems what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton tax policy? They want to maintain 80% of the Bush tax cuts. If you’re crediting those tax rates for giving us a surplus how can you then say you want to leave 80% of the revenue out there?

Why don’t you go ask Obama and the Dems what’s wrong with returning to the Clinton tax policy? They want to maintain 80% of the Bush tax cuts. If you’re crediting those tax rates for giving us a surplus how can you then say you want to leave 80% of the revenue out there?

So tax cuts can hurt by tacking a surplus and turning it into a deficit but a tax increase wont do the opposite at all?

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, compared tax policy with GDP patterns over the last 65 years prove that trickle down economics actually hurt the economy and that raising the taxes on the wealthy do not hurt the economy.

HUNT: Why under those pre-Bush tax cut tax rates did the economy do so well in the ‘90s? And why under the Bush tax rates, less for the wealthy, to do so poorly in this decade?

UPTON: Well, a couple things. One, spending went up, Al, the wars. I mean, that’s trillions of dollars. And also there was no change in the entitlements. And we also know -

HUNT: But that shouldn’t hurt the economy. That shouldn’t hurt economic growth.

UPTON: Yeah, but that impacts the debt and the deficit.

HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?

UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.